Week 14 video - interesting play

[ElvisLives]

Play No. 2

The passer throws a pass into an area not occupied by an eligible Team A player, and the ball is intentionally touched by an originally ineligible player. Because they changed the penalty for ITP to include LOD, we (well, me, anyway) had the "impression" (if not an accurate understanding) that we should go with ITP. I distinctly recall Shaw being critical of "some referees that think this should be intentional grounding" in a similar play in an earlier video this year. (I will try to find it, but it may take a while). In this week's video, he clearly states this is ING, and NOT ITP, because you can't have ITP on an illegal forward pass.
OK. I can buy that. But what about what you said earlier this year?

So, what we take away from this is that when there is ING, there can be no ITP. But, it is totally possible to have a legal forward pass thrown into an area occupied by an eligible Team A player, and then have the pass intentionally touched by an originally ineligible player. In that case, NO ING, but clearly ITP.

Got it. 

[dammitbobby]

Play No. 2

The passer throws a pass into an area not occupied by an eligible Team A player, and the ball is intentionally touched by an originally ineligible player. Because they changed the penalty for ITP to include LOD, we (well, me, anyway) had the "impression" (if not an accurate understanding) that we should go with ITP. I distinctly recall Shaw being critical of "some referees that think this should be intentional grounding" in a similar play in an earlier video this year. (I will try to find it, but it may take a while). In this week's video, he clearly states this is ING, and NOT ITP, because you can't have ITP on an illegal forward pass.
OK. I can buy that. But what about what you said earlier this year?

So, what we take away from this is that when there is ING, there can be no ITP. But, it is totally possible to have a legal forward pass thrown into an area occupied by an eligible Team A player, and then have the pass intentionally touched by an originally ineligible player. In that case, NO ING, but clearly ITP.

Got it. 

I saw this in real time, and the question I had was whether or not the illegal touching would negate the ING, because there absolutely was a receiver in the area where that ball was going and would have wound up, if  Bubba hadn't stuck his grubby paws up to try to catch it.  So whatever would have been the result  (incomplete pass) is off the table, if an ineligible touches the legal forward pass, it should be ING, like it was called in the video... correct? 
 

[ElvisLives]

I saw this in real time, and the question I had was whether or not the illegal touching would negate the ING, because there absolutely was a receiver in the area where that ball was going and would have wound up, if  Bubba hadn't stuck his grubby paws up to try to catch it.  So whatever would have been the result  (incomplete pass) is off the table, if an ineligible touches the legal forward pass, it should be ING, like it was called in the video... correct?

That is the judgment to be made. For this specific down, Shaw very clearly states that there was NOT an eligible player in the area, although he does say that there is an eligible player in the direction of the pass, but too far away to be considered "in the area."
But, it does become our judgment as to how far from the "landing zone" a player must be to be considered NOT in the area. 5 yards away and just standing there? Probably not in the area. 5 yards away but running hard right toward the landing zone - maybe "in the area." Like 'catchable/uncatchable,' give the athlete the benefit of the doubt, if he is doing what he is supposed to be doing.

[bossman72]

I think basically he wants the botched tackle screen to be called ITP and a play like this to be called ING.  I think "under duress" comes into play for these to determine which one to use.